Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Sustainability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MTC and civic group present transit sustainability recommendations: performance targets, incentives and consolidation options
Summary
MTC presented a Transit Sustainability Project that recommends performance targets, a transit performance initiative with investment and incentive components, and institutional reforms; civic group Spur urged stronger metrics, fare integration and tougher accountability mechanisms.
On Jan. 17, 2013, the Transportation Commission heard a two‑part presentation on MTC’s Transit Sustainability Project and a civic‑sector perspective from Spur.
Alex Bauchleman, MTC director of programming and allocations, summarized the Bay Area project that examined financing, service and institutional reforms to address operating and capital shortfalls. He said the region has about 26 transit operators carrying more than 500 million annual passengers and that long‑run unfunded needs for the region approach $1 billion per year for operating and capital combined. Bauchleman said MTC adopted a set of performance targets asking the large operators to reduce one of three metrics — passengers per hour, cost per passenger or cost per passenger‑mile — by 5% in five years relative to the best recent year.
Why it matters: the Bay Area’s transit network is fragmented across many operators and faces rising costs; MTC’s recommendations aim to tie future regional funding to measurable performance, invest in high‑need corridors and create incentives for increased productivity and ridership.
Recommendations presented - Performance targets: MTC recommended reducing a chosen performance metric by 5% within five years and linking future funds to progress toward those targets. - Transit Performance Initiative: two elements — a regional investment program focused on major corridors (noting many transit riders use corridors with average speeds under 9 mph) and an incentive program that pays operators for improved productivity and ridership. - Service and institutional reforms: recommendations included better schedule and fare coordination, joint procurements, sharing capital planning expertise, pursuing targeted consolidations where locally supported (particularly among smaller operators) and county mobility managers for paratransit coordination.
Spur perspective and additional proposals Egon Terplan of Spur praised the project but said the effort could have pushed further. Spur recommended more comparable, board‑facing performance metrics across operators, stronger accountability mechanisms for persistently underperforming agencies, greater use of pay‑for‑performance incentives, and pursuit of regional fare‑policy reforms to reduce transfer friction across operators. Terplan emphasized customer‑facing consolidation (brand, joint procurements, service coordination) as an intermediate step that does not require full employer‑level mergers.
Commission reaction and next steps Commissioners asked for copies of the presentations and additional data on farebox recovery (Bauchleman said regional recovery hovers around 20% with some operators above 60%). Commissioners expressed interest in the project’s institutional ideas and asked MTC and presenters to provide materials to commissioners.
Ending MTC and Spur urged sustained regional collaboration to implement recommendations; commissioners asked staff to distribute the presentation materials and to continue engagement on potential performance‑linked funding proposals.
